Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Dhan Bai vs Pransingh Kurmi on 15 October, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26192
1 CRR-503-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 15 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 503 of 2006
SMT. DHAN BAI
Versus
PRANSINGH KURMI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
None for the petitioner.
Shri R.K.Upadhyay - Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5.
Shri APS Tomar - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.6/State.
ORDER
Petitioner/complainant has preferred this criminal revision under Section
397, 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by impugned judgment of acquittal dated
21.4.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha
in Criminal Case No.133/2004, whereby respondents No.1 to 5/accused persons
have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 Part-II of
IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage of complainant Dhanbai was
solemnized with respondent/accused Pran Singh and other accused persons are in-
laws. After the marriage, accused persons started mentally and physically harassed
the complainant Dhanbai for non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry and they
are often used to beat her. Thereafter, complainant Dhanbai filed a written
complaint before the SHO, Police Station Teonda, District Vidisha. Accordingly,
offence has been registered.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26192
2 CRR-503-2006
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha. The trial Court has
framed the charges under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 Part-II of IPC. Respondents
No.1 to 5/accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence.
4. Prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses while defence did
not examine any witness. The Trial Court after completion of trial and scrutinizing
the evidence available on record, vide impugned judgment dated 21.4.2006
acquitted respondents No.1 to 5/accused persons from all the charges. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid, complainant Dhanbai filed this criminal revision
before this Court.
5. Petitioner stated in her revision memo that Trial Court has wrongly
acquitted the accused persons on the basis of improper appreciation of evidence.
From evidence of complainant Dhanbai (PW-1), Prem Singh (PW-6), Kailash
(PW-7) and Benibai (PW-5), it has been proved that after marriage the
complainant was subjected to cruelty by accused persons and they illtreated her.
Statement of complainant was supported by medical evidence available on record
but the Trial Court has ignored the aforesaid evidence available on record. Hence,
it is prayed that impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside and
respondent/accused persons be convicted for the aforesaid offences.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5/accused opposed
the revision and prayed for its rejection by supporting the impugned judgment
passed by the Trial Court.
7. Counsel for respondent No.6/State submits that the Court may pass an
appropriate order as may be deemed fit.
8. Counsel for the respondents are heard at length. Nobody has appeared on
behalf of the petitioner. Perused the entire record with due care.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26192
3 CRR-503-2006
9. Complainant Dhanbai (PW-1) deposed in her statement that her marriage
was solemnized with Pran Singh about 12 years ago but after the marriage her
husband Pran Singh, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law oftenly beaten
her for non-fulfillment of their demand of motorcycle, TV, and cash amount as
dowry. About one and half years ago, her husband had beaten her, due to which
she sustained injuries over her waist. The incident was witnessed by Dhan Singh
and she lodged a report Ex.P/1. Accordingly, offence has been registered.
10. Harlal (PW-2) who is the father of complainant categorically stated that
accused persons started making demand of dowry. When her daughter reached in
her maternal house after the marriage he has given her sufficient dowry as utensils,
chair, table, bed, mattress, watch, bicycle, cattles and amount of Rs.85,000/- but
the accused persons demanded more dowry and ill-treated her daughter.
11. Benibai (PW-3) who is mother of the complainant also deposed that her
son-in-law came to their house, he always demands for money has taken
Rs.50,000/- in several installments. For non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry,
accused persons committed marpeet with the complainant.
12. Prem Singh (PW-6) also deposed in the same manner.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there are material
omissions and contradictions in the statement of Dhanbai and other prosecution
witnesses, therefore, their statements cannot be relied upon.
14. Dhanbai (PW-1) categorically deposed in her FIR Ex.P/2 that accused
persons are responsible for her three abortion but other witnesses have not
supported her statement. Complainant Dhanbai stated that her husband demanded
motorcycle, colour TV and cash amount but other witnesses have not supported
her version.
15. Harlal (PW-2) stated that Pran Singh demanded Rs.15,000/- from him
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26192
4 CRR-503-2006
but his statement is not supported even by the complainant Dhanbai. Benibai
(PW-5) stated that whenever his son-in-law came at their house he always
demanded Rs.5,000/-, Rs.10,000/- but other witnesses including Dhanbai have not
corroborated her version. Dhanbai in para 8 of her cross-examination stated that
except her husband nobody has demanded dowry but as per Harlal, Benibai and
Prem Singh, all the accused persons have demanded dowry. Therefore, there are
material omissions and contraditions in the statement of the complainant Dhanbai
and other witnesses that reflects their credibility, therefore, testimony of all these
witnesses does not appear to be trustworthy.
16. Dhanbai admits in her cross-examination that except her husband,
nobody has demanded dowry from her. Phool Singh (PW-4) also admits that
accused Pran Singh never demanded dowry in front of him. Benibai also admits in
cross-examination that they have made several reports against the accused
persons regarding marpeet but copy of such report was not produced by the
prosecution. Complainant Dhanbai admits in her cross-examination that about 12
years ago, her marriage has been solemnized but she did not make any complaint
against the accused persons regarding demand of dowry and ill-treatment. Benibai
(PW-5) also admits in para 6 of her cross-examination that accused persons
behaved properly and took care of her daughter/complainant for the period of 8-9
years after the marriage. Prem Singh also deposed in the same manner. Statement
of the complainant was not supported by MLC report.
17. In view of aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is
material omission and contradiction in the statement of complainant and other
witnesses. Complainant Dhanbai was remained kept mum after marriage of about
12 years. Although interested witness has been examined but no independent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26192
5 CRR-503-2006
witnesses have been examined. In view of aforesaid, the Trial Court has rightly
acquitted the accused persons from all the charges and no illegality or perversity
has been shown in the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court.
18. Accordingly, this criminal revision is devoid of merit, substance and is
hereby dismissed.
19. Let record of the Trial Court be sent back along with copy of this order
for necessary information.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
(alok)
